DETROIT -- The United Auto Workers says Marine reservists should show a little more semper fi if they want to use the union's parking lot.

The Marine Corps motto means "always faithful," but the union says some reservists working out of a base on Jefferson Avenue in Detroit have been decidedly unfaithful to their fellow Americans by driving import cars and trucks.

So the UAW International will no longer allow members of the 1st Battalion 24th Marines to park at Solidarity House if they are driving foreign cars or displaying pro-President Bush bumper stickers

"While reservists certainly have the right to drive nonunion made vehicles and display bumper stickers touting the most anti-worker, anti-union president since the 1920s, that doesn't mean they have the right to park in a lot owned by the members of the UAW," the union said in a statement released Friday.

Shocked and disappointed, the Marines are pulling out.

"You either support the Marines or you don't," said Lt. Col. Joe Rutledge, commanding officer of the battalion's active duty instructors. "I'm telling my Marines that they're no longer parking there."

At a time when U.S. armed forces are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, quibbling over parking privileges is "silly," Rutledge said.

The UAW has a long history of barring foreign-made cars from its parking lots. The subject is touchier than ever as Detroit's Big Three loses market share, driving down union membership.

The pro-Bush bumper stickers are another sore spot after last year's election.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger opposed President Bush, accusing him of ignoring calls for labor law reform and failing to combat unfair business practices in China -- a growing threat to U.S. manufacturers.

The dispute arises as the UAW, using laid-off workers for labor, is building a $300,000 home for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The home in Eaton Rapids will operate a residential program for children of veterans who don't have parents, or whose parents can't care for them.

"We do not think it is unreasonable to expect our guests to practice the simple principle of not insulting their host," the UAW statement said.

Rutledge is unmoved.

"I don't see it as a snub against them," he said, adding no conditions were set when the union first began allowing the Marines to park in the lot several years ago. "We're appreciative of what they've done, but you don't come into my office and say, 'OK, we're not going to support some of your Marines.' I don't know what a foreign car is today anyway. BMWs are made in South Carolina now."

You can reach Eric Mayne at (313) 222-2443 or emayne@detnews.com.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/13/C01-115531.htm

Donger

03-14-2005, 12:56 PM

That is some pretty petty, crybaby crap.

Not that I'd expect anything else from union members, mind you.

tyton75

03-14-2005, 01:04 PM

jackass's

DenverChief

03-14-2005, 01:06 PM

ROFL they should charge $3 a spot...I bet that would bend some minds around here

Iowanian

03-14-2005, 01:06 PM

More proof that Unions should be the irrelevant Dinosaurs that they are.

Unions are Fabulous, for people unable to make advancement based on Personal merrit and achievement.

My old man has been UAW for 20 years or more. This sounds more like the way he used to say it was.

Formerly he was the only one he knew in his entire workplace who voted conservative, but he says in the last 5 years or so it's been changing a ton, and that he is still in the minority but it's much more even than it used to be.

DenverChief

03-14-2005, 01:08 PM

More proof that Unions should be the irrelevant Dinosaurs that they are.

Unions are Fabulous, for people unable to make advancement based on Personal merrit and achievement.

Not that I'd expect anything else from union members, mind you.
What ever happened to freedom of expression? Isnt that what the Dems advocate?

Cochise

03-14-2005, 01:09 PM

Unions are Fabulous, for people unable to make advancement based on Personal merrit and achievement.

Show him what he's won!

For extra credit, you could have listed "to drive prices of consumer goods to exhorbitant levels"

Bearcat2005

03-14-2005, 01:13 PM

Show him what he's won!

For extra credit, you could have listed "to drive prices of consumer goods to exhorbitant levels"
Or how about when they put pressure on those who are not in a union and have no desire to.

SBK

03-14-2005, 01:13 PM

The unions in Detroit are the reason that in 20 years Detroit won't be the auto capital of the world.

Iowanian

03-14-2005, 01:20 PM

All Unions suck DC.

They're great for protecting UPS truck loaders who steal from your packages, Great for keeping someone smoking dope on the job from being fired, Great for Driving up prices on Consumer goods, forcing stores to fill their shelves with "made in China" goods, they're great for Getting that fat raise because you've "put in the time", not because you're a good worker.

Unions are as responsible for Corporations moving Jobs to Mexico and India as anything.

[enter stage left] poster with Local 169 tatoo.

Brock

03-14-2005, 01:29 PM

Unfortunately, unions are still a necessary evil, IMO.

Iowanian

03-14-2005, 01:30 PM

It might be funny if those same marines returned with a Platoon of Track vehicles and Crushed every car remaining in that Union Lot.

SBK

03-14-2005, 02:38 PM

Unfortunately, unions are still a necessary evil, IMO.

Nope. For the best results for everyone, it works well if company and employee work together, not go to war against each other.

HC_Chief

03-14-2005, 02:40 PM

Nope. For the best results for everyone, it works well if company and employee work together, not go to war against each other.

Yep. Simple way to provide for this: PROFIT-SHARING.

Brock

03-14-2005, 02:49 PM

Nope. For the best results for everyone, it works well if company and employee work together, not go to war against each other.

Unfortunately, many companies are not willing to work with employees. I'm sure you have basic philosophical problems with the idea of unions, as most conservatives do, however, it has been my experience that unions provide a written code that employees and companies can abide by and prevents unethical managers from changing work rules on teh fly. I am aware there are abuses committed by union members, but the fact is, management of many companies aren't above it either.

Boozer

03-14-2005, 03:27 PM

Someone was giving some Marines something for free, then stopped after those availing themselves of the free service advertised their opposition to the stances of the organization providing the benefit. I drive an import, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch if a union won't let me park my car for free in their lot.

Duck Dog

03-14-2005, 03:48 PM

All Unions suck DC.

They're great for protecting UPS truck loaders who steal from your packages, Great for keeping someone smoking dope on the job from being fired, Great for Driving up prices on Consumer goods, forcing stores to fill their shelves with "made in China" goods, they're great for Getting that fat raise because you've "put in the time", not because you're a good worker.

Unions are as responsible for Corporations moving Jobs to Mexico and India as anything.

[enter stage left] poster with Local 169 tatoo.

Exactly. And unions are responsible for a lot more too. The rising cost of building a house. The rising cost of buying a car. The rising cost of buying food. When check out clerks are making 15-20 bucks an hour, somethings wrong.

Reason #1242 to not support unions.

Donger

03-14-2005, 04:14 PM

Someone was giving some Marines something for free, then stopped after those availing themselves of the free service advertised their opposition to the stances of the organization providing the benefit. I drive an import, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch if a union won't let me park my car for free in their lot.

I'd certainly agree with you if the group that they chose to exclude were not representative of a group that guarantees the freedom of all Americans. Last time I checked, the Marines don't defend the freedoms of Americans based on political affiliation. To them, it makes no difference; it's a shame that the same cannot be said of the UAW leadership.

Bwana

03-14-2005, 04:44 PM

Figures...........The Union at it again.

SBK

03-14-2005, 05:41 PM

Unfortunately, many companies are not willing to work with employees. I'm sure you have basic philosophical problems with the idea of unions, as most conservatives do, however, it has been my experience that unions provide a written code that employees and companies can abide by and prevents unethical managers from changing work rules on teh fly. I am aware there are abuses committed by union members, but the fact is, management of many companies aren't above it either.

There are some companies with bad management. There are some companies that railroad their employees.

I'll never believe that companies are worse to employees as unions are bad to companies.

Never heard of a company that wouldn't let you work unless you PAID to do so......

Boozer

03-14-2005, 06:03 PM

Never heard of a company that wouldn't let you work unless you PAID to do so......

Most strip clubs.

beavis

03-14-2005, 06:12 PM

Unfortunately, many companies are not willing to work with employees. I'm sure you have basic philosophical problems with the idea of unions, as most conservatives do, however, it has been my experience that unions provide a written code that employees and companies can abide by and prevents unethical managers from changing work rules on teh fly. I am aware there are abuses committed by union members, but the fact is, management of many companies aren't above it either.
So two wrongs make a right in this case?

I know most executives are money grubbing crooks, but we don't need another set of petty a-holes trying to counteract them.

The days of the union being useful were gone once they quit making dude climb over the sausage grinder with no saftey harness on. Now, they do much more harm than good.

Amnorix

03-14-2005, 07:34 PM

It might be funny if those same marines returned with a Platoon of Track vehicles and Crushed every car remaining in that Union Lot.

You get your kicks out of damaging stuff that belongs to hard-working middle Americans? :spock:

Nope. For the best results for everyone, it works well if company and employee work together, not go to war against each other.

In 1980 the average CEO made something like 43 times more than the average worker in his company. Now it's something like 200 times more.

Unions are dying a long, slow death. In many industries it's because it's unnecessary. And they do put their ocmpanies at a competitive disadvantage under many circumstances.

But make no mistake -- the advent of the union was the best thing that ever happened to the middle class and middle America. Prior to unions, too many low-skilled positions were treated hardly better than slave labor. Read up on how steelworkers were treated prior to, and at, Homstead, and what happened to garment workers in the early 1900s.

KCWolfman

03-14-2005, 07:40 PM

In 1980 the average CEO made something like 43 times more than the average worker in his company. Now it's something like 200 times more.

Unions are dying a long, slow death. In many industries it's because it's unnecessary. And they do put their ocmpanies at a competitive disadvantage under many circumstances.

But make no mistake -- the advent of the union was the best thing that ever happened to the middle class and middle America. Prior to unions, too many low-skilled positions were treated hardly better than slave labor. Read up on how steelworkers were treated prior to, and at, Homstead, and what happened to garment workers in the early 1900s.
The advent of barbers bleeding their patients and leeches were a boon to the medical industry hundreds of years ago. They also have outlived their usefulness.

2bikemike

03-14-2005, 07:51 PM

I'd certainly agree with you if the group that they chose to exclude were not representative of a group that guarantees the freedom of all Americans. Last time I checked, the Marines don't defend the freedoms of Americans based on political affiliation. To them, it makes no difference; it's a shame that the same cannot be said of the UAW leadership.

I think this about sums it up for me.

Also check around that american made car or motorcycle and you will see all kind of shit made out of america. Just because its assembled in america doesn't make it american.

Mr. Kotter

03-14-2005, 08:10 PM

You get your kicks out of damaging stuff that belongs to hard-working middle Americans? :spock:

Maybe not realistic, but it would be damn funny....and deserved in the minds of a lot of us. :)

BTW, I really LIKE your idea; that would be WAAAAYYY cool....BOOOOOM! Heh.

SBK

03-14-2005, 08:12 PM

In 1980 the average CEO made something like 43 times more than the average worker in his company. Now it's something like 200 times more.

Unions are dying a long, slow death. In many industries it's because it's unnecessary. And they do put their ocmpanies at a competitive disadvantage under many circumstances.

But make no mistake -- the advent of the union was the best thing that ever happened to the middle class and middle America. Prior to unions, too many low-skilled positions were treated hardly better than slave labor. Read up on how steelworkers were treated prior to, and at, Homstead, and what happened to garment workers in the early 1900s.

Unions WERE great, and WERE a much needed thing when they started. Today they aren't needed, and are a major part of the problem.

As far as what a CEO makes compared to a "average worker": Should the guy that's responsible for all the employees, the shareholders, direction of the company, and ensuring a profit be entitled to more compensation than the guy who is supposed to make sure the fries have salt on them, or that the bathroom is clean?

jspchief

03-14-2005, 08:34 PM

Maybe the UAW should concentrate on building better cars. Then they wouldn't have to try and strong-arm everyone into buying their junk.

Loki

03-15-2005, 12:09 AM

Maybe the UAW should concentrate on building better cars. Then they wouldn't have to try and strong-arm everyone into buying their junk.

no kidding...
overpriced junk at that...

penchief

03-15-2005, 06:08 AM

Nope. For the best results for everyone, it works well if company and employee work together, not go to war against each other.

I agree with this statement 100%. Unfortunately, this country has a sordid history of exploiting the worker. The bad taste that exists in the mouths of workers today can be credited to George Bush's policies, plain and simple.

The list is long and the gripes are legitimate. To say those who are being bled by elitist policies are crybabies when corporate America is given a free hand to maximize profit at the expense of America's families is an unbalanced view of what is taking place, IMO. It's no different than the banckruptcy laws that are about to be passed. It squeezes the common person while offerning no accountability for the predatory practices of greedy banking and credit card industries even those industries don't provide a real service to this country. Making money from nothing is one thing, but raping hardworking Americans is another.

The Neocons' primary assertion is correct. War justifies everything. You can always count on a large portion of the populace to put on the blinders when they have a war to rally around, IMO.

Amnorix

03-15-2005, 06:15 AM

The advent of barbers bleeding their patients and leeches were a boon to the medical industry hundreds of years ago. They also have outlived their usefulness.

As we move out of a industrial-based society, you're probably right.

Comparing unions to leeches and bleeding is just ignorant.

Amnorix

03-15-2005, 06:16 AM

There are some companies with bad management. There are some companies that railroad their employees.

I'll never believe that companies are worse to employees as unions are bad to companies.

Never heard of a company that wouldn't let you work unless you PAID to do so......

You should read up on what went on from the start of the industrial era until labor laws etc. came into effect in the 30s.

Brutal does not begin to describe working conditions.

Amnorix

03-15-2005, 06:17 AM

Maybe not realistic, but it would be damn funny....and deserved in the minds of a lot of us. :)

BTW, I really LIKE your idea; that would be WAAAAYYY cool....BOOOOOM! Heh.

I mean Iowanian's company's parking lot.... :LOL:

Amnorix

03-15-2005, 06:25 AM

Unions WERE great, and WERE a much needed thing when they started. Today they aren't needed, and are a major part of the problem.

Unions are dwindling as a percentage of the workforce, as they probably should. The environment is different. Some unions in some industries are still probably useful/beneficial overall, but that number is declining.

As far as what a CEO makes compared to a "average worker": Should the guy that's responsible for all the employees, the shareholders, direction of the company, and ensuring a profit be entitled to more compensation than the guy who is supposed to make sure the fries have salt on them, or that the bathroom is clean?

Yes, but it sometimes goes beyond the pale and into the absurd.

And I said compared to the AVERAGE worker, not the lowest paid employees.

CEOs should be VERY well compensated indeed. But I'm really not sure how nobody blinks when the CEO of Gillette is going to get something like $175 million in connection with the P&G/Gillette merger. I don't know how hard that guy has worked, but he's getting $175M in addition to all the salary and bonuses he's gotten the last X years? :eek:

Baby Lee

03-15-2005, 07:02 AM

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/15/A01-117640.htm

Chief Henry

03-15-2005, 07:33 AM

I read recently that the truck drivers at Farner-Bocken (a company in iowa) are going union. I beleave the article said they're joining the
TEAMSTERS......

Mr. Kotter

03-15-2005, 07:34 AM

I mean Iowanian's company's parking lot.... :LOL:

So did I. :)

Cochise

03-15-2005, 07:35 AM

Unions were a good and useful thing at one time, but I think there are very few industries in which they still provide an overall benefit.

Brock

03-15-2005, 08:10 AM

The bad taste that exists in the mouths of workers today can be credited to George Bush's policies, plain and simple.

You are a complete idiot. It was a DEMOCRATIC president that opened our southern borders to exploitation by corporate interests. Learn a little history before opening your fat yap.

Cochise

03-15-2005, 08:14 AM

You are a complete idiot. It was a DEMOCRATIC president that opened our southern borders to exploitation by corporate interests. Learn a little history before opening your fat yap.

And yet, all those union laborers would baaa their way into the voting booth and vote him back in again tomorrow.

Brock

03-15-2005, 08:17 AM

So two wrongs make a right in this case?

I know most executives are money grubbing crooks, but we don't need another set of petty a-holes trying to counteract them.

The days of the union being useful were gone once they quit making dude climb over the sausage grinder with no saftey harness on. Now, they do much more harm than good.

I have to say I disagree. I am part of a negotiating committee for my company. I sit across the table from the union every three years, and I will tell you that with a company this size (over 200,000), a union contract ensures that there is a written policy in place for company/employee relations. At least in our case, the union is a great benefit, not a hindrance. The notion that unions come in and twist our arms is not true. In this way, everything is negotiated at the table. Want more money? Okay, we want you to copay for your insurance. Want more vacation? Okay, we want an irregular work week. Overall, my experience in dealing with these folks has been very good.

Amnorix

03-15-2005, 08:21 AM

And yet, all those union laborers would baaa their way into the voting booth and vote him back in again tomorrow.

IN GENERAL, which is more pro-union -- Clinton or Bush?

That's a toughie...

Baby Lee

03-15-2005, 08:31 AM

IN GENERAL, which is more pro-union -- Clinton or Bush?

That's a toughie...
'IN GENERAL' = 'I have a list of specifics whose importance I will inflate, then argue that I've presented an overall picture.'

Iowanian

03-15-2005, 09:53 AM

You get your kicks out of damaging stuff that belongs to hard-working middle Americans? :spock:

When I'm outside telling them they can't park their 50mpg, Japanese named Minivan, built in Ohio, while gas is $2/gallon.....I'll stick a target on my vehicle.

....but then again.....I'm not the one tossing Marines out of the lot for driving a datson. I'm sending them packages monthly.

2 groups where I work are unionized, but not everyone, including me. They whine, gripe and routinely make outragous demands. On some issues, they probably benefit the workers.....but usually at a detriment to the organization. That Extra dime raise sure is helpful.....I'm sure it almost covers their union dues.

In the mean time, Detroit Autoworkers can suk mah baows.......I drive a Ford.

jspchief

03-15-2005, 10:04 AM

I wonder how many Marines are going to go buy an American car so that they can park in that parking lot.

Not sure WTF the UAW thinks this will accomplish. All it will do is give them a bunch of negative publicity, and make a lot of Marines think twice about buying an American vehicle.

Iowanian

03-15-2005, 10:40 AM

Isn't it Ironic.........US MARINES being told about being LOYAL Americans by a horde of fat union guys.

penchief

03-15-2005, 11:23 AM

You are a complete idiot. It was a DEMOCRATIC president that opened our southern borders to exploitation by corporate interests. Learn a little history before opening your fat yap.

No need to resort to namecalling. You act as if NAFTA was Clinton's brainchild. That ball was rolling long before he took office. Let the record show that I did not raise the specter of Clinton, Brock did.

In fact, it's my understanding that Bush1 was one of NAFTA's biggest advocates. My complaints with NAFTA are not the same as my complaints with Bush2. Once a problem has been diagnosed (i.e. tax incentives to send businesses overseas and screw American families) this president not only did nothing but continued to encourage it. At least Clinton wanted worker and environmental protections written into NAFTA. This president could care less about anything but his corporate cronies.

Besides NAFTA, what do you have to say about the rest of it? Do you like all of the other corporate welfare initiatives of this president?

penchief

03-15-2005, 11:28 AM

Isn't it Ironic.........US MARINES being told about being LOYAL Americans by a horde of fat union guys.

What is ironic is an American president who claims to be protecting American families by sending their children overseas to fight an ideological war and at the same time promoting social issues that strip them of their liberties and pull the rug out from under their economic well-being, all for the sake of enriching his cohorts.

Brock

03-15-2005, 11:31 AM

Besides NAFTA, what do you have to say about the rest of it? Do you like all of the other corporate welfare initiatives of this president?

Not one specific issue, just like all of your other rants. It is rather obvious that you don't work in a business that has to make money to keep the doors open.

DanT

03-15-2005, 11:53 AM

I was looking at the Wikipedia.org entry on the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is quoted below, and it brought to mind a question. Is the United States presently "in time of war", from a legal standpoint? If so, what nation are we fighting against or is having an opposing nation not required? Is there a simple way to determine if the United States is "in time of war"? Thanks in advance for all serious replies.

Third Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prevents the quartering of soldiers in homes without the owner's consent in time of peace. In time of war, quartering may occur, but only in accordance with law. The Founding Fathers' intention in writing this amendment was to prevent the recurrence of soldiers living in citizens' houses as British soldiers did before the American Revolution.

Text

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be by law.

Quartering
The third amendment is among the least cited (and some would argue most dated) pieces of the US constitution. Its relevance has greatly declined since revolutionary times.

The only time a federal court was asked to invalidate a law or action on Third Amendment grounds was in Engblom v. Carey, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1982. In 1979, prison officials in New York were on strike; they were evicted from their prison facility residences, which were reassigned to members of the National Guard who had temporarily taken their place. Their Third Amendment claims were summarily rejected on the ground that they were not owners of the home. On appeal, however, the term "owner" was construed more broadly. Since there were no Supreme Court precedents on the Third Amendment, the Circuit Court of Appeals relied on rulings relating to the Fourth Amendment, both Amendments relating to privacy rights (the former to quartering, the latter to search and seizure). It was noted that the Supreme Court had rejected notions that Fourth Amendment protections extended only to owners of property, that Court having ruled that "one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy." Similarly, the Circuit Court extended Third Amendment protections to tenants.

Engblom v. Carey represents the whole of the judicial explication of the Third Amendment.

jspchief

03-15-2005, 12:16 PM

I was looking at the Wikipedia.org entry on the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is quoted below, and it brought to mind a question. Is the United States presently "in time of war", from a legal standpoint? If so, what nation are we fighting against or is having an opposing nation not required? Is there a simple way to determine if the United States is "in time of war"? Thanks in advance for all serious replies.

You should read up on what went on from the start of the industrial era until labor laws etc. came into effect in the 30s.

Brutal does not begin to describe working conditions.

I am talking about today, you're talking about 75 years ago. Kinda makes my point don't you think? :thumb:

SBK

03-15-2005, 12:25 PM

Yes, but it sometimes goes beyond the pale and into the absurd.

And I said compared to the AVERAGE worker, not the lowest paid employees.

CEOs should be VERY well compensated indeed. But I'm really not sure how nobody blinks when the CEO of Gillette is going to get something like $175 million in connection with the P&G/Gillette merger. I don't know how hard that guy has worked, but he's getting $175M in addition to all the salary and bonuses he's gotten the last X years? :eek:

I think severance packages are the funny ones. Those guys get paid 7-8 figures to leave. ROFL It's highway robbery, but if they can get it you know that they will demand it.

Now Im sure you mean by this fella getting $175M is from his stock options and stuff. Im sure he's not the only one making out like a bandit in that merger, Warren Buffet is making quite a bit more if I remember right. (over $700M per drudge a few weeks ago)

SBK

03-15-2005, 12:30 PM

Looks like the UAW changed their minds, but the Marines are already looking for Toyotas.....

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/15/A01-117640.htm

DanT

03-15-2005, 12:32 PM

Not trying to be a smartass, but what is the point of this post?

I'm wondering if we are "in time of war" from a legal standpoint. As far as I know, we are in Iraq and Afghanistan as guests of the current regimes, so I don't think we are at war against any nation. On the other hand, I would guess that our soldiers are getting combat pay for their hazardous duty in the Middle East, but I don't know enough about the laws to know if that means the United States is "in time of war".

The Detroit News article that Baby Lee cited on this thread said that we are in a "time of war". I'm not sure exactly how one would know that from the standpoint of our nation's laws.

The UAW decision to ban Marines struck a nerve with many who say U.S. armed forces deserve more respect, especially during a time of war.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/15/A01-117640.htm

jspchief

03-15-2005, 12:41 PM

I'm wondering if we are "in time of war" from a legal standpoint. As far as I know, we are in Iraq and Afghanistan as guests of the current regimes, so I don't think we are at war against any nation. On the other hand, I would guess that our soldiers are getting combat pay for their hazardous duty in the Middle East, but I don't know enough about the laws to know if that means the United States is "in time of war".

The Detroit News article that Baby Lee cited on this thread said that we are "time of war", but when I thought about it, I wasn't sure exactly how one would know that from the standpoint of our nation's laws.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/15/A01-117640.htm
Oh, I see. Regardless of whether we fit the legal or constitutional definition of "wartime", I think the reporter's point still holds up. The UAW is bickering with our Marines over petty "American loyalty" sh*t while they are fighting and dying for our country.

jspchief

03-15-2005, 12:54 PM

Looks like the UAW changed their minds, but the Marines are already looking for Toyotas.....

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/15/A01-117640.htm

No Sh*t? Never saw that coming....:rolleyes:

I never would have guessed that this would have blown up in their faces. That moron that heads the UAW should be fired for being an imbecile. What possible good did he think would come of that initial decision? Surely the UAW isn't so conceited as to think they would garner more sympathy than the military in wartime*

*may not be legal definition of wartime, per DanT

Baby Lee

03-15-2005, 12:55 PM

Not one specific issue, just like all of your other rants. It is rather obvious that you don't work in a business that has to make money to keep the doors open.
But Brock, it is clear and objectively undeniable that this president has no concern for 'the things that make America great' and seeks to implement all 'the things that will destroy America.' It's as clear as the nose on your face. I feel sorry for you if you cannot see such clear and emperical evidence.

Baby Lee

03-15-2005, 12:59 PM

Rush mentioned a B&B that specifies that Bush voters are not welcome as guests.

I've seen a single service on Bartcop.com that proudly announces 'no conservatives need apply.

Iowanian

03-15-2005, 01:09 PM

What is ironic is an American president who claims to be protecting American families by sending their children overseas to fight an ideological war and at the same time promoting social issues that strip them of their liberties and pull the rug out from under their economic well-being, all for the sake of enriching his cohorts.

Try to spin this into a Bush bash if you must, but I guess I don't recall seeing or hearing that George Bush wasn't allowing US Marines to park in his driveway, because of the plastic Emblem on the front.

This reminds me.........I need to get my Ford Truck into the Shop and have the 2 recalls done, because some Union Guys effed something up that could catch it on fire.

I know a little bit about what American Families are being asked to do right now overseas. maybe its time to pull the troops out, and let the teamsters picket in Iraq and Afganistan.....and Syria.

Iowanian

03-15-2005, 01:21 PM

No Sh*t? Never saw that coming....:rolleyes:

I never would have guessed that this would have blown up in their faces. That moron that heads the UAW should be fired for being an imbecile. What possible good did he think would come of that initial decision? Surely the UAW isn't so conceited as to think they would garner more sympathy than the military in wartime*

*may not be legal definition of wartime, per DanT

JSP, the UAW will be forced to file a greivance against you for violating proceedure and attempting to unlawfully terminate a valued employee of your organization. You must first issue the first of eleventy-five verbal warnings, then begin the process of the first Written reprimand. In the mean time, we'd like to say that overwork and Job stress are the cause of the statements made by the member, and therefor, you the employer are responsible for his mistep. You're going to want to give him a month of paid vacation and therapy of his choosing. By the Way, Plan on that 17% increase on wages for next fiscal year's budget.

yours truely,
UAW Council

DenverChief

03-15-2005, 01:22 PM

I need to get my Ford Truck into the Shop and have the 2 recalls done, because some Union Guys effed something up that could catch it on fire.

How do you know it was union? Maybe it was upper management that decided a $11 piece was too expensive to put on all the cars and would still comeout ahead after all the lawsuits?

Brock

03-15-2005, 01:25 PM

This reminds me.........I need to get my Ford Truck into the Shop and have the 2 recalls done, because some Union Guys effed something up that could catch it on fire.

I think you probably need to think about whether it's a design issue or a workmanship issue. 99 times out of 100, it's design.

Soupnazi

03-15-2005, 01:30 PM

This whole incident may be the very definition of petty.

jspchief

03-15-2005, 01:34 PM

How do you know it was union? Maybe it was upper management that decided a $11 piece was too expensive to put on all the cars and would still comeout ahead after all the lawsuits?

I think you probably need to think about whether it's a design issue or a workmanship issue. 99 times out of 100, it's design.

I'm sure thats true, or there wouldn't be enough problems for a recall.

At this point, I'm pretty much antagonizing until chiefs52 shows up and throws a crow bar through my Radiator for Union Blasphemization.

DC.
WHAT! you're saying that Parts, on my "American Built Ford Truck" might not come from an American Union Facility?

Shit.......I guess I'll have to park at the Burger King 4 blocks down to walk to work so the guys don't find out.

I know that Unions had a time and a place, and in certain instances are probably valuable today. It does drive up prices and it does get old having them tell me who I can or Can't have Build my house, office, or car. I've never owned a non-American Brand Car.........but if quality doesn't catch up, Gas Mileage Improve, and Cost go down.........Its no longer a deal breaker.

go bowe

03-15-2005, 02:11 PM

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/15/A01-117640.htm thanks for the link...

at least those dunderheads in the uaw have admitted their mistake and rescinded the no parking policy...

but i don't blame the marines for not wanting to park there any more...

i liked the fact that neighboring aparment complexes offered free parking to the marines...

apparently not everybody in that area has their head up their ass...

DenverChief

03-15-2005, 02:16 PM

head up... ass...

HUA! ;) (Hooah) :p

go bowe

03-15-2005, 02:23 PM

I was looking at the Wikipedia.org entry on the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is quoted below, and it brought to mind a question. Is the United States presently "in time of war", from a legal standpoint? If so, what nation are we fighting against or is having an opposing nation not required? Is there a simple way to determine if the United States is "in time of war"? Thanks in advance for all serious replies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution that amendment has to do with quartering troops, for one thing, not the war powers of the legislative and executive branches...

to answer your question, imho, we are not in a "time of war" for purposes of the third amendment...

we are not at war, legally speaking, because there has been no declaration of war by congress...

but congress is perfectly free to authorize and fund military activity without any declaration of war and has repeatedly done so...

so, in the political and military sense, we are at war...

go bowe

03-15-2005, 02:26 PM

Oh, I see. Regardless of whether we fit the legal or constitutional definition of "wartime", I think the reporter's point still holds up. The UAW is bickering with our Marines over petty "American loyalty" sh*t while they are fighting and dying for our country.absolutely!

DanT

03-15-2005, 03:36 PM

that amendment has to do with quartering troops, for one thing, not the war powers of the legislative and executive branches...

to answer your question, imho, we are not in a "time of war" for purposes of the third amendment...

we are not at war, legally speaking, because there has been no declaration of war by congress...

but congress is perfectly free to authorize and fund military activity without any declaration of war and has repeatedly done so...

so, in the political and military sense, we are at war...

Thanks for the reply, go bo!

KCWolfman

03-15-2005, 03:39 PM

As we move out of a industrial-based society, you're probably right.

Comparing unions to leeches and bleeding is just ignorant.
Obviously you never were responsible for shipping costs with a company after the UPS strike a few years ago.

But you are right, after the Unions have stated that privatizing SS as a gamble when their own pension plans are invested in that gamble, I associate them more with Machiavellian control freaks.

KCWolfman

03-15-2005, 03:41 PM

You should read up on what went on from the start of the industrial era until labor laws etc. came into effect in the 30s.

Brutal does not begin to describe working conditions.
Thank goodness Unions have never resorted to violence, murder, and threats to achieve their goals.

KCWolfman

03-15-2005, 03:42 PM

IN GENERAL, which is more pro-union -- Clinton or Bush?

That's a toughie...
In general, which party gets union support?

Silly question.

Boyceofsummer

03-15-2005, 09:15 PM

All Unions suck DC.

They're great for protecting UPS truck loaders who steal from your packages, Great for keeping someone smoking dope on the job from being fired, Great for Driving up prices on Consumer goods, forcing stores to fill their shelves with "made in China" goods, they're great for Getting that fat raise because you've "put in the time", not because you're a good worker.

Unions are as responsible for Corporations moving Jobs to Mexico and India as anything.

[enter stage left] poster with Local 169 tatoo.

In the 80’s we heard “U.S. workers must become more efficient and accept lower wages to compete with Japan in world markets. In the 90’s we heard how open and free world wide trade policies in conjunction with competitive wages are the only way to save U.S. jobs. Now we hear that wage concessions equal to the slave labor of Indonesia, Asia and Central America combined with ever increasing health and welfare co-payments and corporate tax cuts will slow the certain employment decline in this country. You are fools! I better never EVER hear that you ship or receive postal service with UPS. Enjoy your 40-hour week prick.

KCWolfman

03-15-2005, 10:12 PM

In the 80’s we heard “U.S. workers must become more efficient and accept lower wages to compete with Japan in world markets. In the 90’s we heard how open and free world wide trade policies in conjunction with competitive wages are the only way to save U.S. jobs. Now we hear that wage concessions equal to the slave labor of Indonesia, Asia and Central America combined with ever increasing health and welfare co-payments and corporate tax cuts will slow the certain employment decline in this country. You are fools! I better never EVER hear that you ship or receive postal service with UPS. Enjoy your 40-hour week prick.
Yup, much better to expect 40.00 an hour salaries to place a light bulb in a plug and then wonder why we can only hire illegal aliens to work for 5.25 at the local grocery.

go bowe

03-15-2005, 11:36 PM

Yup, much better to expect 40.00 an hour salaries to place a light bulb in a plug and then wonder why we can only hire illegal aliens to work for 5.25 at the local grocery.hey, where can i get one of those 40 dollar an hour light bulb jobs?

Saggysack

03-16-2005, 12:12 AM

I'm taking it this parking lot is private property. If so, whats the big deal? Isn't it the right of the property owner to say who can and can't park on his/her property without fear of reprisal?

trndobrd

03-16-2005, 12:19 AM

I'm taking it this parking lot is private property. If so, whats the big deal? Isn't it the right of the property owner to say who can and can't park on his/her property without fear of reprisal?

Wat zegt uw avatar? Ik ken het niet.

Saggysack

03-16-2005, 12:51 AM

Wat zegt uw avatar? Ik ken het niet.

Niet ruimen, maar prikken!

In english... Do not clear, just prick! Or something along those lines.

jspchief

03-16-2005, 08:51 AM

I'm taking it this parking lot is private property. If so, whats the big deal? Isn't it the right of the property owner to say who can and can't park on his/her property without fear of reprisal?

File this post under "No shit, Sherlock"

No one is saying they don't have a legal right to do it. It's just a slap in the face of the Marines over something that seems very petty. beyond that, in terms of public relations, it's completely idiotic.

Just because it's your legal right to do something, that doesn't automatically make it the smart thing to do.

penchief

03-16-2005, 03:04 PM

Try to spin this into a Bush bash if you must, but I guess I don't recall seeing or hearing that George Bush wasn't allowing US Marines to park in his driveway, because of the plastic Emblem on the front.

This reminds me.........I need to get my Ford Truck into the Shop and have the 2 recalls done, because some Union Guys effed something up that could catch it on fire.

I know a little bit about what American Families are being asked to do right now overseas. maybe its time to pull the troops out, and let the teamsters picket in Iraq and Afganistan.....and Syria.

Hey, I'm not saying that I don't believe their reaction is a little childish because I think it is.

I'm only responding to what has turned into another conservative circle jerk in order to bash unions by the usual cast of Bush lovers. That isn't right either. When looking at the big picture, Bush deserves the anger directed at him by the working person. His record is their ammunition.

Duck Dog

03-16-2005, 03:48 PM

Hey, I'm not saying that I don't believe their reaction is a little childish because I think it is.

I'm only responding to what has turned into another conservative circle jerk in order to bash unions by the usual cast of Bush lovers. That isn't right either. When looking at the big picture, Bush deserves the anger directed at him by the working person. His record is their ammunition.

Thanks to Bush, this non-union working person gets to keep more of his money. Not only that, my salary exceeds what unions pay for the same job. I pay zero union dues. I have 100% med coverage up to 10K per year. And my dental covers the first 2K for each year. Plus I get 4 weeks of vacation per year.

All in great thanks to Bush!

I know, I know. I'm a Bush lover, circle jerker, so I don't count, right?

Iowanian

03-16-2005, 06:37 PM

You are fools! I better never EVER hear that you ship or receive postal service with UPS. Enjoy your 40-hour week prick.

Some Dooshbag forgot to take his medication today....

Do you know the best part about my 40 hr week? The end of it.

I recieved packages the past two days from UPS, FedEx, US Mail and SPeedy Delivery.

UPS' union for the Spaz-tards in the loading docks are EXACTLY the kind of Union Bullshit I'm alluding to. My brother worked there during college, was hassled and threatened if he didn't join the union, was promoted, and written up daily by the Union.....for such Horrible Violations as, trying to fire a dumbass he caught smoking dope on the job.....Thinking he should fire 2 guys he caught cutting open packages and stealing, redhanded.....and.........keep in mind he was loading 1-2 trucks per night alone, expecting 3 guys who were to load one, could do it......and when they fell behind.........and backed up the line....He jumped in and started loading boxes....................grievance by the Union.

If UPS' Union is your standard..........Your standard can eat the Corn Hull out of my Dump.

Boyceofsummer

03-16-2005, 11:00 PM

Thanks to Bush, this non-union working person gets to keep more of his money. Not only that, my salary exceeds what unions pay for the same job. I pay zero union dues. I have 100% med coverage up to 10K per year. And my dental covers the first 2K for each year. Plus I get 4 weeks of vacation per year.

All in great thanks to Bush!

I know, I know. I'm a Bush lover, circle jerker, so I don't count, right?

From where I come from you and your job benefits would bring forth a jealous rage. MOST people in this country are struggling just to make ends meet and are awash in debt. We hear a lot about principles from you ‘righties’ but you condemn the organizations devoted to helping working men and women. The idea that a reasonable living wage is contrary to the ever-efficient corporate ‘bottom line’ is anti American. I personally am tiring of this constant pressure to blindly support our military. I supported our military by voting for the party that just might listen to reason and bring these Americans home where they belong. The war in Iraq is over. The election in Iraq is over. What are we still doing there? Exporting freedom? That was never mentioned prior to this war. School finances, health care and issues related to the many aging Americans have been swept aside in favor of gay and lesbian control and corporate welfare. How about pressuring Americans to support our children by properly funding the institutions of learning and making an attempt to provide all Americans with a minimum standard of health care? We are spending billions to do this in Iraq yet we criticize organizations that support these ideals in America. It is nice to hear that you are doing so well. In comparison, Bush and the Republicans have been on a 25-year crusade to slash wages, work rules and health care benefits for the vast majority of working families. Yours may be next.

Saggysack

03-16-2005, 11:54 PM

File this post under "No shit, Sherlock"

No one is saying they don't have a legal right to do it. It's just a slap in the face of the Marines over something that seems very petty. beyond that, in terms of public relations, it's completely idiotic.

Just because it's your legal right to do something, that doesn't automatically make it the smart thing to do.

Life isn't fair, get over it.

jspchief

03-17-2005, 09:01 AM

Life isn't fair, get over it.

Wow. Intelligent response. Tell that to the UAW.

WTF is your point? That people aren't entitled to think it was a dick move by the UAW?

You seem to be missing the point.

Saggysack

03-17-2005, 03:43 PM

Wow. Intelligent response. Tell that to the UAW.

WTF is your point? That people aren't entitled to think it was a dick move by the UAW?

No law was broken. UAW can do whatever they want with their property, that is their right. You don't understand that? So now it isn't a right thing to do to protect your property rights? I see... I guess freedom ain't what it used to be.

No law was broken. UAW can do whatever they want with their property, that is their right. You don't understand that? So now it isn't a right thing to do to protect your property rights? I see... I guess freedom ain't what it used to be.
There is no law against cooking and eating your own pets either. That doesn't make it right.

Saggysack

03-17-2005, 06:14 PM

There is no law against cooking and eating your own pets either. That doesn't make it right.

A cow can be a pet. A chicken can be a pet, a goat too.

I never knew you were a member of PETA? So when did the change of heart take place? I missed it.

KCWolfman

03-17-2005, 06:19 PM

A cow can be a pet. A chicken can be a pet, a goat too.

I never knew you were a member of PETA? So when did the change of heart take place? I missed it.
Nice way to dodge the point, eh?

Saggysack

03-17-2005, 06:25 PM

Nice way to dodge the point, eh?

Dodge? I don't think so. I just responded to a flippant question with a flippant response.

KCWolfman

03-17-2005, 06:28 PM

Dodge? I don't think so. I just responded to a flippant question with a flippant response.
Oh, well then:

No, a cow, a chicken, nor a goat can be a pet in my city.

However, since you are playing dense again: A parent can raise their child with only 2 sets of clothes. Again, that doesn't make it right.

Whose responsibilty is it to provide these soldiers with adequate parking?

KCWolfman

03-17-2005, 06:40 PM

Whose responsibilty is it to provide these soldiers with adequate parking?
I agree, legally the UAW acted within their abilities. I never disagreed.

That doesn't make them look any less an asshole or hurt their standing with the public.

Maybe if the UAW made a better product as cheaply as the Asians, they wouldn't have either a perception issue or the military getting vehicles elsewhere, eh?

Saggysack

03-17-2005, 06:42 PM

I agree, legally the UAW acted within their abilities. I never disagreed.

That doesn't make them look any less an asshole or hurt their standing with the public.

Maybe if the UAW made a better product as cheaply as the Asians, they wouldn't have either a perception issue or the military getting vehicles elsewhere, eh?

So exercising your rights makes you look like an asshole? Run this by me again.

You never answered my question though. Whose responsibility is it to provide these soldiers with adequate parking?

KCWolfman

03-17-2005, 06:46 PM

So exercising your rights makes you look like an asshole? Run this by me again.

Obviously, your problem is that you believe everyone else to be as "flippant" as yourself. Again, a parent can give a kid two sets of clothes as his entire apparel. That is the parent's right. That doesn't mean the parent is any less an asshole for doing so. The UAW can reserve their parking lots for whomever blindly kisses their rearend and thanks them for it. It makes them no less an asshole as well.

You never answered my question though. Whose responsibility is it to provide these soldiers with adequate parking? Are you asking for a flippant answer to your flippant question?

Saggysack

03-17-2005, 07:05 PM

Obviously, your problem is that you believe everyone else to be as "flippant" as yourself. Again, a parent can give a kid two sets of clothes as his entire apparel. That is the parent's right. That doesn't mean the parent is any less an asshole for doing so. The UAW can reserve their parking lots for whomever blindly kisses their rearend and thanks them for it. It makes them no less an asshole as well.

Are you asking for a flippant answer to your flippant question?

You equate a parent not providing the necessary materials for their child on the same level as the UAW exercising their rights? I find that somewhat peculiar.

Sure the UAW caters to those that kiss their ass. Is that any different from what our elected officials do?

I'm looking for an honest answer to a honest question. Whose responsibilty is it to provide these soldiers with adequate parking?

KCWolfman

03-17-2005, 07:13 PM

You equate a parent not providing the necessary materials for their child on the same level as the UAW exercising their rights? I find that somewhat peculiar.

Sure the UAW caters to those that kiss their ass. Is that any different from what our elected officials do?

I'm looking for an honest answer to a honest question. Whose responsibilty is it to provide these soldiers with adequate parking?
Since they are government workers, I would imagine it is the government's role. Since there are obviously lies spread in the article (my sister-in-law works for the UAW and drives an import on their lot every working day) and since you have no problem with catering to those that kiss their ass - I am assuming you support imminent domain during this conflict and wouldn't mind the government taking over the lot, right? After all, it is their legal "right" if they choose to pursue it.

Saggysack

03-17-2005, 07:28 PM

Since they are government workers, I would imagine it is the government's role. Since there are obviously lies spread in the article (my sister-in-law works for the UAW and drives an import on their lot every working day) and since you have no problem with catering to those that kiss their ass - I am assuming you support imminent domain during this conflict and wouldn't mind the government taking over the lot, right? After all, it is their legal "right" if they choose to pursue it.

I do not support land grabs.

So I guess you are trying to say you do support land grabs? :shrug:

KCWolfman

03-17-2005, 07:32 PM

I do not support land grabs.

So I guess you are trying to say you do support land grabs? :shrug:
Not at all.

I just wondered how long until "So exercising your rights makes you look like an asshole?" would stand with you.

No small surprise at all that it ends with unions against our military and government.

Saggysack

03-17-2005, 07:59 PM

Not at all.

I just wondered how long until "So exercising your rights makes you look like an asshole?" would stand with you.

No small surprise at all that it ends with unions against our military and government.

Doesn't the govt. pay on land grabs? I have yet to hear about them paying anything to UAW for use of their lot, after all it is the right thing to do. Right? And don't they have zoning and time issues before they can seize the property? If the govt. wants to exercise their rights in that manner, they must take the proper legal steps.

Yeah, I have something against the military.... ROFL :rolleyes: I didn't join the military because I hate them, you know.

Doesn't the govt. pay on land grabs? I have yet to hear about them paying anything to UAW for use of their lot, after all it is the right thing to do. Right? And don't they have zoning and time issues before they can seize the property? If the govt. wants to exercise their rights in that manner, they must take the proper legal steps.

Yeah, I have something against the military.... ROFL :rolleyes: I didn't join the military because I hate them, you know.
Exactly, the government has the legal right to take the land. However, you stated you don't support such action. Evidently you only support legal action in certain circumstances.

Hypocrisy suits you well.

SBK

03-17-2005, 08:30 PM

From where I come from you and your job benefits would bring forth a jealous rage. MOST people in this country are struggling just to make ends meet and are awash in debt. We hear a lot about principles from you ‘righties’ but you condemn the organizations devoted to helping working men and women. The idea that a reasonable living wage is contrary to the ever-efficient corporate ‘bottom line’ is anti American. I personally am tiring of this constant pressure to blindly support our military. I supported our military by voting for the party that just might listen to reason and bring these Americans home where they belong. The war in Iraq is over. The election in Iraq is over. What are we still doing there? Exporting freedom? That was never mentioned prior to this war. School finances, health care and issues related to the many aging Americans have been swept aside in favor of gay and lesbian control and corporate welfare. How about pressuring Americans to support our children by properly funding the institutions of learning and making an attempt to provide all Americans with a minimum standard of health care? We are spending billions to do this in Iraq yet we criticize organizations that support these ideals in America. It is nice to hear that you are doing so well. In comparison, Bush and the Republicans have been on a 25-year crusade to slash wages, work rules and health care benefits for the vast majority of working families. Yours may be next.

So much emotional thinking......so little logic.

By the way, who deserves more money, the person taking the risk to form the company, going in major debt to do so. Knowing that if the company doesn't make money they won't either, or the person that works there 40 hours a week if the company profits of not.

Boyceofsummer

03-17-2005, 11:15 PM

So much emotional thinking......so little logic.

By the way, who deserves more money, the person taking the risk to form the company, going in major debt to do so. Knowing that if the company doesn't make money they won't either, or the person that works there 40 hours a week if the company profits of not.

You lie! No where in my reply do I say that the worker deserves to make more than a corporation. YOU SAID THAT! I made reference to a reasonable living wage. Logic my ass.

Saggysack

03-17-2005, 11:50 PM

Exactly, the government has the legal right to take the land. However, you stated you don't support such action. Evidently you only support legal action in certain circumstances.

Hypocrisy suits you well.

Why do you have to try to insult anyone and everyone that disagrees with you? Kinda says alot about you, who you are and how you feel about yourself, atleast IMO it does.

No, I can just see a difference in whining about the abuse of power of the govt. taking land that is not theirs vs. whining about someone exercising their property rights for their own bought and paid for property.

jspchief

03-17-2005, 11:52 PM

So exercising your rights makes you look like an asshole? Run this by me again.

In this case? Yes it does, at least in the eyes of a lot of people. That's what you don't seem to understand. It has nothing to do with laws, or rights, or responsibilities. It has to do with your actions, and how they reflect on you, regardless of legality. Yes, the UAW is entitled to pick and choose who parks on their property. No one disputes that. But 99% of the people in this thread, along with a hell of a lot of other people, think they look like assholes for doing it.

It's a lot like manners. No one is forced to be polite. But if you're rude, there are still consequences. They aren't legal consequences. They are social consequences. The social consequence of the UAW's decision was that a lot of people thought they were insensitive to the plight of today's soldier. They don't pay a fine for it. They just have to deal with the negative public perception.

Baby Lee

03-18-2005, 06:12 AM

Since there are obviously lies spread in the article (my sister-in-law works for the UAW and drives an import on their lot every working day)
I dunno, my Dad is IBEW, and he has carpooled guys who drive imports to work over to the union hall because imports aren't allowed in the IBEW parking in solidarity to UAW.

jettio

03-18-2005, 06:26 AM

Thanks to Bush, this non-union working person gets to keep more of his money. Not only that, my salary exceeds what unions pay for the same job. I pay zero union dues. I have 100% med coverage up to 10K per year. And my dental covers the first 2K for each year. Plus I get 4 weeks of vacation per year.

All in great thanks to Bush!

I know, I know. I'm a Bush lover, circle jerker, so I don't count, right?

Unless you happen to be working for a tits-up oil company in the 20th year of bankruptcy, how was it that B*sh has anything to do with your employment compensation and benefits.

jettio

03-18-2005, 06:32 AM

Some Dooshbag forgot to take his medication today....

Do you know the best part about my 40 hr week? The end of it.

I recieved packages the past two days from UPS, FedEx, US Mail and SPeedy Delivery.

UPS' union for the Spaz-tards in the loading docks are EXACTLY the kind of Union Bullshit I'm alluding to. My brother worked there during college, was hassled and threatened if he didn't join the union, was promoted, and written up daily by the Union.....for such Horrible Violations as, trying to fire a dumbass he caught smoking dope on the job.....Thinking he should fire 2 guys he caught cutting open packages and stealing, redhanded.....and.........keep in mind he was loading 1-2 trucks per night alone, expecting 3 guys who were to load one, could do it......and when they fell behind.........and backed up the line....He jumped in and started loading boxes....................grievance by the Union.

If UPS' Union is your standard..........Your standard can eat the Corn Hull out of my Dump.

The best managers know that you have to keep the best working mules in the field.

My guess is that your brother's ambition was not to retire as the best truck-loader in history.

If your brother was not in it for the long haul, why would the standard of performance that he himself could not keep up with for the long term, be the standard for people that were going to work that job for a longer time.

Baby Lee

03-18-2005, 06:38 AM

If your brother was not in it for the long haul, why would the standard of performance that he himself could not keep up with for the long term, be the standard for people that were going to work that job for a longer time.
Ha! I'm not lazy, I'm just pacing myself.

New rule. If you plan on staying, you don't have to work hard. Smart.

KingPriest2

03-18-2005, 07:20 AM

yes Prob most Unions are bad but some are good such as the UAW. My dad worked for Ford over 30 years and it provided him a nice life. Hell look at the NFL they have a union.

jettio

03-18-2005, 07:23 AM

Ha! I'm not lazy, I'm just pacing myself.

New rule. If you plan on staying, you don't have to work hard. Smart.

No the new rule is, if you plan on changing the rules for everybody else, stick around so that they apply to you as well.

recycle

03-18-2005, 07:27 AM

Unions are as responsible for Corporations moving Jobs to Mexico and India as anything.
No. That would be minimum wage and that's a federal law.

The average offshored job in India pays $3000-5000 according to a couple videos in our business class. Income per capita in India is $500 annually.

That means 3 things:
1) Indians who work for US multinationals make 6-10 times what their friends make.
2) They all still make far less than US minimum wage.
3) Unions are far from responsible for causing corporations to move jobs to Mexico and India.

Corporations spend a lot of money and time to ensure that the average American doesn't understand the value of labor unions.

How can private companies like UPS conduct business when their employees organize? Guess that union didn't force UPS out of business.

KingPriest2

03-18-2005, 07:27 AM

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Duck Dog
Thanks to Bush, this non-union working person gets to keep more of his money. Not only that, my salary exceeds what unions pay for the same job. I pay zero union dues. I have 100% med coverage up to 10K per year. And my dental covers the first 2K for each year. Plus I get 4 weeks of vacation per year.

All in great thanks to Bush!

I know, I know. I'm a Bush lover, circle jerker, so I don't count, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you are being sarcastic. If not You are one of the few with health ins costs very minimal. YOu must work for the government. I pay close to $800 a month on insurance.

recycle

03-18-2005, 07:57 AM

Show him what he's won!

For extra credit, you could have listed "to drive prices of consumer goods to exhorbitant levels"
I wonder if there are any examples of unions forcing companies to fold because they demand wages that are too high.

recycle

03-18-2005, 07:58 AM

Unfortunately, unions are still a necessary evil, IMO.
yes, just like governments, taxes, politicians, and lawyers.

recycle

03-18-2005, 07:59 AM

Nope. For the best results for everyone, it works well if company and employee work together, not go to war against each other.
Unions don't cause war any more than corporations do.

Duck Dog

03-18-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Duck Dog
Thanks to Bush, this non-union working person gets to keep more of his money. Not only that, my salary exceeds what unions pay for the same job. I pay zero union dues. I have 100% med coverage up to 10K per year. And my dental covers the first 2K for each year. Plus I get 4 weeks of vacation per year.

All in great thanks to Bush!

I know, I know. I'm a Bush lover, circle jerker, so I don't count, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you are being sarcastic. If not You are one of the few with health ins costs very minimal. YOu must work for the government. I pay close to $800 a month on insurance.

I work for a private, family owned business. They take excellent care of us, and the bennies are excellent. I realize this is not the norm.

I was in a school talking with guys who do the same thing I do. All were union and all were dick heads about me not being union. We compared pay and bennies and that really pissed them off.

I remember being on a job with two union installers. It didn't matter what we were doing or how important it was. They stopped at 10AM and 2PM for breaks and noon for lunch. We had an entire building of people who's network was down and these guys are taking breaks.

recycle

03-18-2005, 08:09 AM

Exactly. And unions are responsible for a lot more too. The rising cost of building a house. The rising cost of buying a car. The rising cost of buying food. When check out clerks are making 15-20 bucks an hour, somethings wrong.

Reason #1242 to not support unions.
how naive. there are many companies that operate competitively with unions and are not forced out of business as so many here seem to think.

The difference is, those companies w/o unions are shafting their employees and paying about 30% what they should be paying them. the profits are then passed on to the executives and shareholders.

recycle

03-18-2005, 08:12 AM

I'll never believe that companies are worse to employees as unions are bad to companies.
Shows how subjective and narrowminded you are. If you are incapable of changing your mind, then why discuss this issue?

recycle

03-18-2005, 08:17 AM

In 1980 the average CEO made something like 43 times more than the average worker in his company. Now it's something like 200 times more.

Unions are dying a long, slow death. In many industries it's because it's unnecessary. And they do put their ocmpanies at a competitive disadvantage under many circumstances.

But make no mistake -- the advent of the union was the best thing that ever happened to the middle class and middle America. Prior to unions, too many low-skilled positions were treated hardly better than slave labor. Read up on how steelworkers were treated prior to, and at, Homstead, and what happened to garment workers in the early 1900s.
Aha! Someone has been reading something other than headlines and scoreboards.

recycle

03-18-2005, 08:21 AM

As far as what a CEO makes compared to a "average worker": Should the guy that's responsible for all the employees, the shareholders, direction of the company, and ensuring a profit be entitled to more compensation than the guy who is supposed to make sure the fries have salt on them, or that the bathroom is clean?
yes, but to what extent?

Realize that you're never going to be that CEO and your perception may change.

recycle

03-18-2005, 08:22 AM

I agree with this statement 100%. Unfortunately, this country has a sordid history of exploiting the worker. The bad taste that exists in the mouths of workers today can be credited to George Bush's policies, plain and simple.

The list is long and the gripes are legitimate. To say those who are being bled by elitist policies are crybabies when corporate America is given a free hand to maximize profit at the expense of America's families is an unbalanced view of what is taking place, IMO. It's no different than the banckruptcy laws that are about to be passed. It squeezes the common person while offerning no accountability for the predatory practices of greedy banking and credit card industries even those industries don't provide a real service to this country. Making money from nothing is one thing, but raping hardworking Americans is another.

The Neocons' primary assertion is correct. War justifies everything. You can always count on a large portion of the populace to put on the blinders when they have a war to rally around, IMO.
Very good points.

Velvet_Jones

03-18-2005, 08:30 AM

And yet, all those union laborers would baaa their way into the voting booth and vote him back in again tomorrow.
That's because he got a BJ on the job and didn't get fired.

Velvet

SBK

03-18-2005, 08:39 AM

yes, but to what extent?

Realize that you're never going to be that CEO and your perception may change.

If you tell yourself you'll never accomplish something, then you're right, you never will.

And how do you know that I will never be THAT CEO? (not saying I want to be, but you don't know me)

SBK

03-18-2005, 08:45 AM

You lie! No where in my reply do I say that the worker deserves to make more than a corporation. YOU SAID THAT! I made reference to a reasonable living wage. Logic my ass.

If you have a problem with what you make then do something else.

People like you act like folks are required to not make enough. This is a free country, if you don't make enough, go do something else.

To expect a company to bend over and not turn a profit so that people make more than a reasonable wage is retarded. I don't expect to get a job at Wendy's flippin burgers and make $75,000 a year, nor do I expect to take a job running Wells Fargo for $15,000 a year. People know what they're getting into when they take the job. If it's not enough, pass it up, the market will dictate what amount has to be paid for the job.

Garcia Bronco

03-18-2005, 08:48 AM

I think Unions really no longer have a place in America....important at one time...but now thet're just an excuse to not work, charge more, and in some cases deliver an all-around shitty job. They're also, FME, shitty people.

I had a buddy working on a governement contract in a man-hole at ground zero in NY participating in clean up. The Union "labor" poured toxic waste on their team while in the man-hole. Un-****ing believable.

The ultimate example of Unions run-a-muck is Verizon...you can't get those cocksuckers to do anything on time. The even better part is the people that leave there take that attitude to other jobs.

recycle

03-18-2005, 08:51 AM

My brother worked there during college, was hassled and threatened if he didn't join the union, was promoted, and written up daily by the Union.....for such Horrible Violations as, trying to fire a dumbass he caught smoking dope on the job.....
So the union does disciplinary action? Or are you and your brother confused?

recycle

03-18-2005, 08:56 AM

From where I come from you and your job benefits would bring forth a jealous rage. MOST people in this country are struggling just to make ends meet and are awash in debt. We hear a lot about principles from you ‘righties’ but you condemn the organizations devoted to helping working men and women. The idea that a reasonable living wage is contrary to the ever-efficient corporate ‘bottom line’ is anti American. I personally am tiring of this constant pressure to blindly support our military. I supported our military by voting for the party that just might listen to reason and bring these Americans home where they belong. The war in Iraq is over. The election in Iraq is over. What are we still doing there? Exporting freedom? That was never mentioned prior to this war. School finances, health care and issues related to the many aging Americans have been swept aside in favor of gay and lesbian control and corporate welfare. How about pressuring Americans to support our children by properly funding the institutions of learning and making an attempt to provide all Americans with a minimum standard of health care? We are spending billions to do this in Iraq yet we criticize organizations that support these ideals in America. It is nice to hear that you are doing so well. In comparison, Bush and the Republicans have been on a 25-year crusade to slash wages, work rules and health care benefits for the vast majority of working families. Yours may be next.
You're right. However most of your opponents can't or won't realize these truths because they don't want to infringe upon the rights of the wealthy corporations. They're under the delusion that someday it will be them on that throne.

recycle

03-18-2005, 09:02 AM

If you have a problem with what you make then do something else.
good point.
To expect a company to bend over and not turn a profit so that people make more than a reasonable wage is retarded. I don't expect to get a job at Wendy's flippin burgers and make $75,000 a year, nor do I expect to take a job running Wells Fargo for $15,000 a year. People know what they're getting into when they take the job. If it's not enough, pass it up, the market will dictate what amount has to be paid for the job.
Of course you're exaggerating for effect. I disagree with your reasoning.

Most unions aren't negotiating for 200% of fair wages, they're merely trying to get 75-100% wages of what the job is worth. They're merely advocating benefits to the employee instead of benefits to the already wealthy CEO's.

Duck Dog

03-18-2005, 09:04 AM

how naive. there are many companies that operate competitively with unions and are not forced out of business as so many here seem to think.

The difference is, those companies w/o unions are shafting their employees and paying about 30% what they should be paying them. the profits are then passed on to the executives and shareholders.

I was refering to the cost the consumer absorbs because of the over priced unions. I could give a flip about any workers. I worry about and take care of myself. If a worker is getting the shaft, then said worker should find another job. I realize looking for jobs and working hard are foreign concepts to unions and liberals and they'd realize that if they would quit holding out their hands looking for freebees.

Garcia Bronco

03-18-2005, 09:06 AM

So the union does disciplinary action? Or are you and your brother confused?That's not the point....do you advocate dope smoking while on the job? If so...what other drugs do you think people should not get fired for doing while on the job? Do you think the dope smoker should be allowed to keep his job? Especially when his action can result in liability to the company..which will result in increased TCO of the business. Why would a Union care if a dope smoker got fired?

recycle

03-18-2005, 09:17 AM

I was refering to the cost the consumer absorbs because of the over priced unions.
Myth.

You honestly think corporations will pass on their reduction in expenses to the consumer?? Dream on. Read Buchanan's "The Great Betrayal": http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316115185/qid=1111162242/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/002-3911203-6167207

In it are several case studies where large corp's shift jobs overseas w/o ever lowering the cost of their products.

Don't be so naive as to think that costs are determined solely by employee wages. Corporations ain't the white knights of the US economy.

recycle

03-18-2005, 09:19 AM

That's not the point....do you advocate dope smoking while on the job? If so...what other drugs do you think people should not get fired for doing while on the job? Do you think the dope smoker should be allowed to keep his job? Especially when his action can result in liability to the company..which will result in increased TCO of the business. Why would a Union care if a dope smoker got fired?
And that's not the point either.

The point is: does Iowanian really have a clue how unions work, or is he merely regurgitating corporate propaganda?

Garcia Bronco

03-18-2005, 09:27 AM

And that's not the point either.

The point is: does Iowanian really have a clue how unions work, or is he merely regurgitating corporate propaganda?

No...that would be your point and reason for responding to this thread. You believe that to be true. But I did notice you didn't answer my questions. I'd expect that from a Union guy. Which you obviously seem to be. It's obvious the dope smoker doesn't deserve his job and a union has no business defending him.

Later on

recycle

03-18-2005, 09:30 AM

Of course I didn't answer your silly question because it's rhetorical. No one would argue that an on-the-job dope smoker deserves his job. So let's not clutter the thread with such obvious rhetoric.

SBK

03-18-2005, 09:31 AM

good point.

Of course you're exaggerating for effect. I disagree with your reasoning.

Most unions aren't negotiating for 200% of fair wages, they're merely trying to get 75-100% wages of what the job is worth. They're merely advocating benefits to the employee instead of benefits to the already wealthy CEO's.

Actually you're wrong. If they were asking for "fair" pay there wouldn't be a fight. And CEO's get to keep their job if the company profits, if it does not they are fired. The profits go to the investors, or shareholders in the corporation. :thumb:

So the CEO makes bank no matter what, unless he or she is fired, in which case they make bank on the way out.

SBK

03-18-2005, 09:36 AM

You're right. However most of your opponents can't or won't realize these truths because they don't want to infringe upon the rights of the wealthy corporations. They're under the delusion that someday it will be them on that throne.

No, they understand that if the company doesn't profit they don't have a job.

recycle

03-18-2005, 09:37 AM

Actually you're wrong. If they were asking for "fair" pay there wouldn't be a fight.
Don't be so naive. Corporations and their shareholders want more, more, more--and if the current management won't try to squeeze every drop out of the employees then the board will fire that management and elect new executives.

It's just like when a used-car salesman sells you a lemon for $12,000 even though it's worth $10K. Business, like life, is not fair.

I hate to be the one to break it to ya, but you seem a little innocent.

Saggysack

03-18-2005, 09:42 AM

CWA doesn't seem to be taking SBC down. Looks to me like they are growing very well.

SBK

03-18-2005, 09:52 AM

I hate to be the one to break it to ya, but you seem a little innocent.

I would say the same about you. Believe it or not, "evil corporations" do a lot of good for this country. And if it weren't for "evil corporations" millions of people wouldn't have jobs.

By the way, just a side note but if I were you I'd post on the football side of this board too. I won't say why, but don't claim you weren't warned. :thumb:

SBK

03-18-2005, 09:55 AM

Don't be so naive. Corporations and their shareholders want more, more, more--and if the current management won't try to squeeze every drop out of the employees then the board will fire that management and elect new executives.

If the pay was unacceptable, nobody would take the job. The fact that folks are working at a particular place means that the pay is fair. Going on strike over a $0.10 raise is not because the pay is too low.

Boyceofsummer

03-18-2005, 11:55 AM

If you have a problem with what you make then do something else.

People like you act like folks are required to not make enough. This is a free country, if you don't make enough, go do something else.

To expect a company to bend over and not turn a profit so that people make more than a reasonable wage is retarded. I don't expect to get a job at Wendy's flippin burgers and make $75,000 a year, nor do I expect to take a job running Wells Fargo for $15,000 a year. People know what they're getting into when they take the job. If it's not enough, pass it up, the market will dictate what amount has to be paid for the job.

I did not make any statement about my wages. I am defending labor organizations as a checks and balances feature. You site market forces as the deciding factor for wages. Slave labor from Asia and Central America and China's cheap labor force should not dictate a forever declining standard of living for American working families. This is a free country. Many Americans don't believe that freedom should be used as a reason to enslave the working class. Do you?

Duck Dog

03-18-2005, 12:19 PM

Myth.

You honestly think corporations will pass on their reduction in expenses to the consumer?? Dream on. Read Buchanan's "The Great Betrayal": http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316115185/qid=1111162242/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/002-3911203-6167207

In it are several case studies where large corp's shift jobs overseas w/o ever lowering the cost of their products.

Don't be so naive as to think that costs are determined solely by employee wages. Corporations ain't the white knights of the US economy.

You're lost. I want you to explain to me how it's a myth that the cost of a house built by union carpenters, plumbers and electricians is more expensive than if built by non union tradesmen.

I'll help you. It's not a myth. It's fact.

SBK

03-18-2005, 01:13 PM

I did not make any statement about my wages. I am defending labor organizations as a checks and balances feature. You site market forces as the deciding factor for wages. Slave labor from Asia and Central America and China's cheap labor force should not dictate a forever declining standard of living for American working families. This is a free country. Many Americans don't believe that freedom should be used as a reason to enslave the working class. Do you?

Cheap asain labor doesn't have any effect on most jobs in this country. Factories and textile jobs yes, but in most other industries no. American workers won't work for pay that isn't acceptable for the job.

And the declining standard isn't because of pay, it's because of how what they are paid is spent. It's not the gov'ts job to step in and make sure people get more pay because they don't spend what they make correctly.

Case in point, my mom raised 3 boys, owned her home, and fed us all on a $15,000 a year salary. I make way more than that now and Im 25. Most people would cry out and say the gov't should have made sure that she made more, which is bs. She didn't get any gov't help, no welfare, foodstamps or other gimmes, and we grew up just fine.

ITS NOT WHAT YOU MAKE, ITS WHAT YOU SPEND.

Iowanian

03-18-2005, 02:15 PM

So the union does disciplinary action? Or are you and your brother confused?

its difficult to understand what you're saying with a Union rep Dong tickling your Uvula.

Those thieves and dope smokers(on the job) in particular, were defended by the union and not allowed to be fired. No penalty.'

Unions suck baows, and ra-ra Union people are sheep. Brainwashed.

People who work hard and are capable of getting by on their own Merrit, don't need a union.

Iowanian

03-18-2005, 02:19 PM

You're lost. I want you to explain to me how it's a myth that the cost of a house built by union carpenters, plumbers and electricians is more expensive than if built by non union tradesmen.

I'll help you. It's not a myth. It's fact.

Don't forget that the house will be done quicker also.....Less breaks, Shorter Lunches, Work past 4pm, and the "hammer technician" will actually help the Laborers carry a bucket of drywall mud.

KCWolfman

03-18-2005, 05:11 PM

How can private companies like UPS conduct business when their employees organize? Guess that union didn't force UPS out of business.
Nope, but they sure have raised their rates above and beyond the cost of living since that last strike.

Stealing ain't cheap.

KCWolfman

03-18-2005, 05:12 PM

Many unions aren't negotiating for 200% of fair wages, they're merely trying to get 75-100% wages of what the job is worth.

100% based upon what facts?

Boyceofsummer

03-18-2005, 06:28 PM

Cheap asain labor doesn't have any effect on most jobs in this country. Factories and textile jobs yes, but in most other industries no. American workers won't work for pay that isn't acceptable for the job.

And the declining standard isn't because of pay, it's because of how what they are paid is spent. It's not the gov'ts job to step in and make sure people get more pay because they don't spend what they make correctly.

Case in point, my mom raised 3 boys, owned her home, and fed us all on a $15,000 a year salary. I make way more than that now and Im 25. Most people would cry out and say the gov't should have made sure that she made more, which is bs. She didn't get any gov't help, no welfare, foodstamps or other gimmes, and we grew up just fine.

ITS NOT WHAT YOU MAKE, ITS WHAT YOU SPEND.

SLAVES DON'T SPEND ANYTHING!

KCWolfman

03-18-2005, 06:33 PM

SLAVES DON'T SPEND ANYTHING!
Sure they do. There were plenty of slaves to the Hoffas.

jettio

03-18-2005, 08:42 PM

Basic economics says that price is a function of supply and demand.

The price of a good in the marketplace is what someone will pay.

The fixed costs that go into producing a product might make it infeasible to continue to produce the product for the price that the product will bring in the market, but anybody that thinks price is primarily a function of the costs of production does not understand free market principles.

Price is more a function of what someone will pay.

The biggest difference with the post war prosperity compared to the pre-depression roaring 20's and its apparent prosperity is that Unions and the GI Bill helped to bring more people to a more prosperous middle class, and the purchase power of those people earning a better wage became a necessary ingredient for economic growth.

America simply would not be the country that it is today if it were not for Unions. People earning subsistence wages can't buy anything but subsistence products. A lot of American jobs are based on products and services that are leisure or luxury items. Those jobs do not exist if nobody can afford the sh*t.

SBK

03-18-2005, 09:05 PM

Basic economics says that price is a function of supply and demand.

The price of a good in the marketplace is what someone will pay.

The fixed costs that go into producing a product might make it infeasible to continue to produce the product for the price that the product will bring in the market, but anybody that thinks price is primarily a function of the costs of production does not understand free market principles.

Price is more a function of what someone will pay.

The biggest difference with the post war prosperity compared to the pre-depression roaring 20's and its apparent prosperity is that Unions and the GI Bill helped to bring more people to a more prosperous middle class, and the purchase power of those people earning a better wage became a necessary ingredient for economic growth.

America simply would not be the country that it is today if it were not for Unions. People earning subsistence wages can't buy anything but subsistence products. A lot of American jobs are based on products and services that are leisure or luxury items. Those jobs do not exist if nobody can afford the sh*t.

Nobody here is saying unions WERE bad. We are all say that they ARE bad. We needed them back in the day, today they are very much unnecessary. :(

SBK

03-18-2005, 09:06 PM

SLAVES DON'T SPEND ANYTHING!

Comparing union workers to slaves is beyond laughable.

Time for you to STFU.

Boyceofsummer

03-18-2005, 11:07 PM

Comparing union workers to slaves is beyond laughable.

Time for you to STFU.

I called union workers slaves? No, I did not! You my friend, are liar. I will no longer argue with you. It is useless. You will learn soon enough. Good riddance!

SBK

03-19-2005, 01:22 AM

I called union workers slaves? No, I did not! You my friend, are liar. I will no longer argue with you. It is useless. You will learn soon enough. Good riddance!

ROFL I hear Im one of the few that doesn't have you on iggy anyway. Might as well chase me off too.

I still say time for you to STFU.

penchief

03-19-2005, 06:13 AM

Nobody here is saying unions WERE bad. We are all say that they ARE bad. We needed them back in the day, today they are very much unnecessary. :(

I respectfully disagree. To me, this is just like saying that environmental regulation is no longer needed.

I agree that humanitarian gains over the past few decades have made their need less relevent. However, the BushCo corporate welfare agenda is making the necessity of unions a reality again, IMO. At the very least, there is a need to balance the unrestrained pursuit of greed at the expense of working families. Whether or not unions can still serve that function or not will be seen. Maybe federal regulations will have to do the trick. Either way, it is clear that BushCo has made a concerted effort to undermine those checks and balances that have been established over the past few decades.

Both history and greed have proven, for the most part, that business and industry cannot be trusted to do the right thing in the face of the profit motive.

KCWolfman

03-19-2005, 07:38 AM

I respectfully disagree. To me, this is just like saying that environmental regulation is no longer needed.

I agree that humanitarian gains over the past few decades have made their need less relevent. However, the BushCo corporate welfare agenda is making the necessity of unions a reality again, IMO. At the very least, there is a need to balance the unrestrained pursuit of greed at the expense of working families. Whether or not unions can still serve that function or not will be seen. Maybe federal regulations will have to do the trick. Either way, it is clear that BushCo has made a concerted effort to undermine those checks and balances that have been established over the past few decades.

Both history and greed have proven, for the most part, that business and industry cannot be trusted to do the right thing in the face of the profit motive.

Does every evil in your life somehow relate to this administration? How sad for you.

History has proven that MANKIND cannot be trusted to do the right thing in the face of a profit motive. That includes Business, Industry, AND UNIONS. That is a simple fact.

penchief

03-19-2005, 08:31 AM

Does every evil in your life somehow relate to this administration? How sad for you.

History has proven that MANKIND cannot be trusted to do the right thing in the face of a profit motive. That includes Business, Industry, AND UNIONS. That is a simple fact.

And that is why balance is the key.

My life is just fine. I can separate my personal contentment from the disingenuous attempts of this administration to undermine everything this country has stood for in order to feed their ideological extremism.

A balanced, pragmatic approach is the key to anything, including human welfare and the economy. This administration is simply nothing more than a bunch of business suits hired by the elite to turn the clock back on progress. They have no problem with aggression or deception, no matter who gets hurt......as long as it's not their corporate or banking buddies.

go bowe

03-19-2005, 09:30 AM

And that is why balance is the key.
* * *
A balanced, pragmatic approach is the key to anything. . .I can separate my personal contentment from the disingenuous attempts of this administration to undermine everything this country has stood for in order to feed their ideological extremism.
balance? you be the judge... :D :D :D

KCWolfman

03-19-2005, 10:29 AM

balance? you be the judge... :D :D :D
Pretty much what I thought.

StcChief

03-19-2005, 11:23 AM

UAW Can't stand the competition, heat. Get out of the business. slowly but surely becoming completely irrelevant in America.

Since when can unions with less then <15% of working Americans display this line of BS.

All contractors/employees not driving American cars park across the street in gravel lot at GM plant in Wentzville MO.

Yet Another reason I've been driving Japanese since 1979. (I wouldn't work for American car company if it was the last job on earth)

The other was the American POS cars owned before that kept breading down.

Fork them.

penchief

03-19-2005, 04:54 PM

balance? you be the judge... :D :D :D

I wish this administration would give me more to praise. I have stated on this board those times when I have agreed with this president. I just happen to be diametrically opposed to most of his corporate welfare policies which are nothing more than a windfall for the banking, oil, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies at the expense of working families and the environment.

It's no accident that every economic policy put forth by this White House benefits the same entities over and over with no benefit to the worker or the consumer.

BushCo and Cheneyburton are bought and paid for by the power-qou and I think that it is detrimental to the fabric of this country.

SBK

03-20-2005, 12:22 AM

I wish this administration would give me more to praise. I have stated on this board those times when I have agreed with this president. I just happen to be diametrically opposed to most of his corporate welfare policies which are nothing more than a windfall for the banking, oil, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies at the expense of working families and the environment.

It's no accident that every economic policy put forth by this White House benefits the same entities over and over with no benefit to the worker or the consumer.

BushCo and Cheneyburton are bought and paid for by the power-qou and I think that it is detrimental to the fabric of this country.

I'd take off those blue glasses you're wearing and actually look at what's happened. Im not going to explain it cause Im sure you've heard it a million times here, but this post looks like a quote from the 1960's democrat playbook. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter

03-20-2005, 01:04 AM

....It's no accident that every economic policy put forth by this White House benefits the same entities over and over with no benefit to the worker or the consumer....

Really???

I'm a teacher; in the lowest paid state in the country....and I pay $7,000 + LESS in taxes over even MORE income than we had during the Clinton years.....

Am I one of the aforementioned "entities"? I think not. :hmmm:

penchief

03-20-2005, 05:19 AM

Really???

I'm a teacher; in the lowest paid state in the country....and I pay $7,000 + LESS in taxes over even MORE income than we had during the Clinton years.....

Am I one of the aforementioned "entities"? I think not. :hmmm:

Your statement nor your situation can be proved or disproved by me. I can give you hundreds of examples (including mine) where the change in income taxes is minimal. Easily swallowed up by (and then some) the increase in the amount of health insurance alone. Some people have lost their health insurance all together. And many have lost their overtime pay even as they work overtime. And their pensions. All this while the cost of health care, pharmeceuticals, education, energy, etc. is on the rise, rise, rise for the sake of record profit.

I can't say that there are other circumstances in your life that have changed but from what little I know about teachers salaries it seems that your decrease in taxes far exceeds the percentages related to the president's tax cuts.

I am glad that your are one of the fortunate ones. However, whether you recognize it or not many people are suffering because of the president's coporate welfare policies.

penchief

03-20-2005, 05:40 AM

I'd take off those blue glasses you're wearing and actually look at what's happened. Im not going to explain it cause Im sure you've heard it a million times here, but this post looks like a quote from the 1960's democrat playbook. :thumb:

I think you also need to take of your glasses and look around. Politics is not a sporting event. People are paying the price for this president's corporate welfare policies. If my statements look like they are from the 1960' democratic playbook it is because conservatives in this country have resorted to their 1920's playbook. :thumb:

SBK

03-20-2005, 03:59 PM

I think you also need to take of your glasses and look around. Politics is not a sporting event. People are paying the price for this president's corporate welfare policies. If my statements look like they are from the 1960' democratic playbook it is because conservatives in this country have resorted to their 1920's playbook. :thumb:

Not quite. You sound like the dems do today, which is how they've sounded for 40 years. That's why they lose at the polls. Republicans have won in the arena of ideas.

Bush could hand you a check for $1,000,000 and you'd still complain about him. Fact is his "corporate welfare" policies have created millions of jobs, resored a receding economy, and lowered taxes for everyone THAT PAYS.

redbrian

03-21-2005, 03:22 PM

Exactly. And unions are responsible for a lot more too. The rising cost of building a house.

I'm as anti-union as the next guy but your barking up the wrong tree on that point. The Unions are not real strong in the resedential market. Commercial Construction yes, they have tried to crack the residential market but Builders for the most part do not hire workers anymore, they hire sub contractors. All of which are independent guys who do not want to nor can afford to be associated with a union.

On another note: How many of these UAW asses shop at Wall-Mart?

Duck Dog

03-22-2005, 07:38 AM

I'm as anti-union as the next guy but your barking up the wrong tree on that point. The Unions are not real strong in the resedential market. Commercial Construction yes, they have tried to crack the residential market but Builders for the most part do not hire workers anymore, they hire sub contractors. All of which are independent guys who do not want to nor can afford to be associated with a union.

On another note: How many of these UAW asses shop at Wall-Mart?

Really? Is that why they (the union reps) parked their cars outside a new residential neighborhood in my area and talked to every potential home buyer about hiring only union contractors becasue the builders were using non-union labor?

But really, the point was; a home built by the union is more expensive than the ones built by independents. There is no disputing that.

recycle

03-22-2005, 02:24 PM

If the pay was unacceptable, nobody would take the job. The fact that folks are working at a particular place means that the pay is fair.
So the 3rd world Nike sweat shops are fair? Those people work under grotesque conditions for a tiny fraction of the US minimum wage, and because they work there, you call that fair.

I think it's pretty clear how unreasonable your argument has become.

recycle

03-22-2005, 02:27 PM

You're lost. I want you to explain to me how it's a myth that the cost of a house built by union carpenters, plumbers and electricians is more expensive than if built by non union tradesmen.

I'll help you. It's not a myth. It's fact.
You missed my point Duck.

I'm saying it's a myth that corporations will ALWAYS pass on their reduction in expenses to the consumer. Read Buchanan's "The Great Betrayal". In it are several case studies where large corp's shift jobs overseas w/o ever lowering the cost of their products.

Iowanian

03-22-2005, 02:38 PM

Union-Mumbo Jumbo.

Higher cost= Higher expenses=consumer takes it in arse.

recycle

03-22-2005, 02:45 PM

That's the propaganda (myth) that corporations sell, yes.

The more likely equation is something like:

higher wages = lower dividends = same cost to consumers

BTW, Iowanian, you never answered my question.
My brother worked there during college, was hassled and threatened if he didn't join the union, was promoted, and written up daily by the Union.....for such Horrible Violations as, trying to fire a dumbass he caught smoking dope on the job.....
So the union does disciplinary action?

Radar Chief

03-22-2005, 02:52 PM

That's the propaganda (myth) that corporations sell, yes.

The more likely equation is something like:

higher wages = lower dividends = same cost to consumers

Right. :rolleyes: But in reality it’s more like, higher wages = lower dividends = go out of business for lack of profitability.

recycle

03-22-2005, 02:56 PM

hmmm.... I guess that could happen, but it's unlikely as I see it. A corporation would stop paying dividends long before it went out of business.

so far, no one has present an example of how unions actually hurt an industry or a company.

Iowanian

03-22-2005, 03:03 PM

That's the propaganda (myth) that corporations sell, yes.

The more likely equation is something like:

higher wages = lower dividends = same cost to consumers

BTW, Iowanian, you never answered my question.

So the union does disciplinary action?

I said NO.

they prevented the dope smoker and Thieves(that could have been your package) from being terminated or punished.

Keep drinking that Union Koolaide,and someday, maybe your job will be located in Tiajuana too.

Now, in the mean time Lil trooper, its after 4pm, and you and Earl are scheduled to go down to the site that Mom-pop Outfit is building and stuff a crowbar through their radiator. I mean, Crimeny, they're doing it for 78% of the cost, and costing Union Jobs by their Unethical competitive practices

SBK

03-22-2005, 06:47 PM

So the 3rd world Nike sweat shops are fair? Those people work under grotesque conditions for a tiny fraction of the US minimum wage, and because they work there, you call that fair.

I think it's pretty clear how unreasonable your argument has become.

Im referring to UNION WORKERS IN AMERICA.

Nice try, but you in no way proved that American workers will work a job for unacceptable pay.

Iowanian

03-23-2005, 09:00 AM

I'd also ask recount what in the hell the price of tea in bora bora has to do with overpaid Union workers in the US? The Cost of living in those 3rd world countries is also peanuts compared to ours. When you live in a grass hut and can ride a bike around your country before noon, you don't HAVE to make the same money as UAW Mop technicians.

Keep drinking that Kookaide,and your Dues...are Due again.

recycle

03-24-2005, 01:08 PM

So the union does disciplinary action?
and you answered...
I said NO.
So why did you originally say...
My brother worked there during college, was hassled and threatened if he didn't join the union, was promoted, and written up daily by the Union....
So the union wrote up your brother--daily no less...but you say the union doesn't do disciplinary action.... :rolleyes:

go bowe

03-24-2005, 01:14 PM

I'd also ask recount what in the hell the price of tea in bora bora has to do with overpaid Union workers in the US? The Cost of living in those 3rd world countries is also peanuts compared to ours. When you live in a grass hut and can ride a bike around your country before noon, you don't HAVE to make the same money as UAW Mop technicians.

So the union wrote up your brother--daily no less...but you say the union doesn't do disciplinary action.... :rolleyes:
Is a write up disciplinary action?

I write up my employees all the time. They are not disciplined until they receive a formal action against them and it is recorded in the Human Resources Permanent file.

I have the authority to write up someone who is habitually tardy and give that as one of the deciding factors in not giving them an increase after review. But that is hardly something that goes in a permanent file as some sort of disciplinary action.

go bowe

03-24-2005, 05:45 PM

I think it's just a very large boat occupant.okay, i'm worn out from all the fun i've been having today...

but i have to admit that i don't get it...

very large boat occupant?

what am i missing here?

does tom cash work on an aircraft carrier or something?

i'm at a loss here (not that that is unusual or anything)...

go bowe

03-24-2005, 05:50 PM

Is a write up disciplinary action?

I write up my employees all the time. They are not disciplined until they receive a formal action against them and it is recorded in the Human Resources Permanent file.

I have the authority to write up someone who is habitually tardy and give that as one of the deciding factors in not giving them an increase after review. But that is hardly something that goes in a permanent file as some sort of disciplinary action.i could be wrong here, but i think that he's just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill about something that iowanian said...

at one point, iirc, iowanian used the term write up when he really meant grievance...

nevertheless, it was perfectly clear from the context what he meant...

this redux person just seems to have a hard-on for the eyeohweigheeanne...

but i think he's as much out of his league as the babbling ghost was earlier today...